Opinion
05 Civ. 4504 (TPG).
September 5, 2007
OPINION
This action is brought by a former New York State prison inmate against the Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS") and certain employees of the Department and of Green Haven Correctional Facility. The individual defendants are sued in their official and individual capacities.
Defendants move to dismiss the complaint on various grounds. The motion is granted.
Plaintiff was released from custody on July 9, 2007. Since plaintiff seeks money damages only and not injunctive relief, his claims are not mooted. However, they are without merit.
The Complaint
The following is a summary of the relevant allegations of the complaint.
Plaintiff requested permission to form an inmate organization. Such inmate organizations are sometimes permitted. The name of the organization plaintiff proposed was the "Center for Continuing Education," and its stated purpose was to help facilitate obtaining funding for post-secondary educational programs —i.e., college level programs. The proposed organization was to work through "standing committees," which would be a "consortium made up of inmates, educational administrators and prison officials." Plaintiff's request was processed through Green Haven and up to DOCS. It was denied.
The complaint alleges that defendants allowed entities, such as the New York Theological Seminary "and its progeny," to offer post-secondary education programs, but their "primary focus is non-secular." Plaintiff asserts that defendants' refusal to allow plaintiff to form his organization infringed upon his right to seek a post-secondary education that did not have religious context.
The complaint further alleges that defendants allowed inmates in state female correctional facilities to form "such educational entities," apparently referring to prison organizations of the kind sought by plaintiff.
Plaintiff alleges three causes of action. The first claims that his First Amendment right of association was violated. The second claims that his First Amendment right to "freedom from religion" was violated. And the third claims discrimination against plaintiff because of gender.
Discussion
The complaint asserts nothing in the way of valid causes of action. The Constitution in no way confers upon plaintiff the right to form a "consortium made up of inmates, educational administrators and prison officials." The First Amendment does not confer upon plaintiff the right to participate in the management of the prison.
The fact that a religious organization was allowed to offer certain post-secondary education programs did not mean that plaintiff's right to freedom of religion was in any way abridged by denying him the ability to form the kind of organization he sought. Plaintiff was not required to take theological courses. He was free to decline any program offered him by New York Theological Seminary or any similar organization. Thus his freedom to practice religion or not to practice religion was in no way interfered with.
Plaintiff's final claim is for alleged discrimination arising from the fact that state female inmates are allowed to "form such educational entities." The federal courts have wisely refused to entertain equal protection claims based on assertions of differences between the treatment of inmates in different facilities, including claims regarding male and female inmates.See Women Prisoners of the Dist. of Columbia Dep't of Corr. v. District of Columbia, 93 F.3d 910, 927 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Klinger v. Dep't of Corr., 31 F.3d 727, 732 (8th Cir. 1994).
The court concludes that no valid claim of constitutional violation is made out in the complaint. In addition the causes of action against DOCS and the individual defendants in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. As to the defense of qualified immunity regarding the individual defendants in their individual capacities, the court does not reach that question because there has been no showing of any constitutional violation which could be the basis for a claim against any defendant.
The complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
SO ORDERED.